In a message dated 1/5/2000 11:47:26 AM Pacific Standard Time,
lcrocker@mercury.colossus.net(none) writes:
<<
Tolerance of many things some people do not tolerate well is
a noble goal--it is a form of flexibility and versatility--but I
don't like the idea of "tolerance" in general as a positive value.
I will not deny the existence of real evil in the world, and I do
not for a moment believe in tolerating it. It is much the same
with "peace," another thing some people see as a value in itself
that I do not. Peace is merely a side effect of justice, and
sometimes justice must be fought for. I think the underlying
value is not tolerance itself, but flexibility in dealing with
varying circumstances one may face in the world. >>
Simply put, although of course, the above has truth in it, it's still not an
excuse to condone intolerance. Flexibility is also stupid if you are too
flexible.
Tolerance of nature does not *inherantly* imply tolerance of all things evil,
any more than generosity of nature does not imply giving away every damn
thing you own to every stranger on the street.
If one is being unctuously critical, one will agree with the above statement,
but only with the following addendum:
Tolerance of ideas and values is different from tolerance of puerile actions.
In extremes, any virtue will be a handicap.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:06 MDT